Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meow Wars (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars

No reliable sources whatsoever, only hits are Usenet posts on Google News. Last two AfDs from 2005 and 2007 were closed as keeps due to verifiability through Google News, which is hardly a reliable source. The external links consist of a dead link and three personal websites, none of which are reliable either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may be a famous "flame war" but, without reliable 3rd party sources it's useless. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike modern viral videos or internet memes, this "flamewar" has had over a decade for writers to evaluate it and determine its place in the history of civilization. Yet I see not one reliable and independent reference. Fails WP:N. All it has are primary sources (the postings themselves) and people asserting they have heard of it or asserting it is important. Edison (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – still lacks any evidence of notability, as mentioned above. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as last time, there is still no reliable source material here. Some parts might possibly be mergeable into a general article on Usenet, but there's nothing here that would support a full article, and reliable published sources have taken no notice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to note that I believe the nom means Google Groups, as Google News does in many cases index reliable sources. Google Groups, however, is just an archive of Usenet posts, and as such is about as reliable as a random sampling of Web forum posts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic seems more appropriate to encyclopedia dramatica than Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If you were on Usenet at the time, it was quite prominent, since it certainly affected many, many thousands of Usenet users. Furthermore, the Google Groups Usenet archive is the most reliable source there is for the date and content of old Usenet messages... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that the events happened, as the usenet archives prove. But the notability that you assert would need to backed up by reliable secondary sources. No such have been found, have they? Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reason to overturn the last 2 AFDs (honestly, is this going to be nominated annually?). This is, in some regards, an acid test of Wikipedia's ability to cover topics that, by their very nature, are not as likely to be covered by mainstream media (or print) as they might be through online sources ... but WIkipedia's policy regarding such sources is still stuck in the 90s and needs to be updated for 2008. 23skidoo (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia did not exist or have any policies in the 90's, so this one probably is not "stuck" there. Edison (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything without coverage in reliable sources is non-notable by defiition. This is a NN piece of internet trivia, that has no - and will never have any- sources. People disagreeing with policy should try to get the policy changed, not ignore it when it suits them. The previous AfDs got it wrong, as it remans uncited and non-notable. The primary souces just show it's existance, not notabilityYobmod (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This wasn't like the lolcat-du-jour memes we have now. This actually had an impact on the operation of Usenet. Im sure that secondary sources ( besides the several primary and selfpub-by-experts we have at present on the article ) can be found, just that this was from a time when there weren't a lot of free news articles on the web, and people are going to actually have to go to a library or go on LEXIS-NEXIS. Id suggest if anyone can find the "Best of Usenet" book from the late 90s ( it was similar in format to the "Dummies" books, it was one of many mass-market books about the net that were everywhere at the time ) there's probably pages and pages about this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.